Red Mosquito

To not even touch on 1) the fact that Trump is *not* heading towards reelection based on any reputable pole nor 2) the fact that *who* the Democrats elect will have a pretty big impact on that whole election thing.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:He's been taking some blows. Don't worry, I'm.sure the Mayor of South fucking Bend is going to rise to the occasion.

It was a pretty stupid ad in general, but to drop it in a Democratic primary? Woof.

What's all this now?

The same logic in this ad dictates that subway systems and public schools are a mistake, because millionaires can access them. It’s also a disingenuous argument that places like the Heritage Foundation have been using for years to attack public works. Whether you agree with the college idea or not, legitimizing right wing talking points from a position of Democratic influence during a presidential candidacy....sucks.

Trump is heading towards reelection and this is what we give a shit about?

Obviously the best way to beat him is to attack proposals that simultaneously poll above 55% nationally while also ranking as a top-five voter turnout motivator for one of the largest in-party voting blocks. If you can grant free legitimacy to the Republican base’s talking points from the Democratic platform, its just a sweet bonus.

Means testing for mitigating the social cost of offering free tuition to public colleges is not a republican talking point.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:He's been taking some blows. Don't worry, I'm.sure the Mayor of South fucking Bend is going to rise to the occasion.

It was a pretty stupid ad in general, but to drop it in a Democratic primary? Woof.

What's all this now?

The same logic in this ad dictates that subway systems and public schools are a mistake, because millionaires can access them. It’s also a disingenuous argument that places like the Heritage Foundation have been using for years to attack public works. Whether you agree with the college idea or not, legitimizing right wing talking points from a position of Democratic influence during a presidential candidacy....sucks.

Trump is heading towards reelection and this is what we give a shit about?

Obviously the best way to beat him is to attack proposals that simultaneously poll above 55% nationally while also ranking as a top-five voter turnout motivator for one of the largest in-party voting blocks. If you can grant free legitimacy to the Republican base’s talking points from the Democratic platform, its just a sweet bonus.

Means testing for mitigating the social cost of offering free tuition to public colleges is not a republican talking point.

Literally the second and third paragraph on the Heritage Foundation:

While proponents call these proposals “investments in our future,” the reality is they would be a suffocating financial burden on every taxpayer, but especially on middle- and lower-income citizens. There’s an inherent unfairness to forcing many working-class Americans who couldn’t afford to go to college themselves to pay off the loans of those who could.

Requiring a family making $50,000 a year to pay off the college debts of doctors, lawyers, engineers and even some members of Congress who make $174,000 a year is unconscionable. Moreover, how fair is it for those who did go to college and worked hard to pay off their loans to then be forced to pay off everyone else’s?

It was literally the first hit on Google for "Heritage Foundation college," by the way:

https://www.heritage.org/education/comm ... ge-tuition

Whoops!

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:He's been taking some blows. Don't worry, I'm.sure the Mayor of South fucking Bend is going to rise to the occasion.

It was a pretty stupid ad in general, but to drop it in a Democratic primary? Woof.

What's all this now?

The same logic in this ad dictates that subway systems and public schools are a mistake, because millionaires can access them. It’s also a disingenuous argument that places like the Heritage Foundation have been using for years to attack public works. Whether you agree with the college idea or not, legitimizing right wing talking points from a position of Democratic influence during a presidential candidacy....sucks.

Trump is heading towards reelection and this is what we give a shit about?

Obviously the best way to beat him is to attack proposals that simultaneously poll above 55% nationally while also ranking as a top-five voter turnout motivator for one of the largest in-party voting blocks. If you can grant free legitimacy to the Republican base’s talking points from the Democratic platform, its just a sweet bonus.

Means testing for mitigating the social cost of offering free tuition to public colleges is not a republican talking point.

Literally the second and third paragraph on the Heritage Foundation:

While proponents call these proposals “investments in our future,” the reality is they would be a suffocating financial burden on every taxpayer, but especially on middle- and lower-income citizens. There’s an inherent unfairness to forcing many working-class Americans who couldn’t afford to go to college themselves to pay off the loans of those who could.

Requiring a family making $50,000 a year to pay off the college debts of doctors, lawyers, engineers and even some members of Congress who make $174,000 a year is unconscionable. Moreover, how fair is it for those who did go to college and worked hard to pay off their loans to then be forced to pay off everyone else’s?

I’m not an Ivy Leaguer so I could be wrong, but what you’ve quoted above is about student debt forgiveness, which is neither what I commented on nor what was contained in PB’s ad nor mentioned in your link.

It reads to me like you’re interpreting my initial post to mean “Republicans argue that we shouldn’t give things to millionaires.” And that therefore, absent that literal and direct association, you believe the point crumbles.

My point instead was that:

1. Pete’s logic is stupid because it works as an argument against publicly maintained roads, and that separately from that...

2. ...it is built on lending credibility to arguments like the one Mickey posted above. The logic in that article is the foundation...the heritage, if you will...of Pete’s opposition.

But all of this is secondary to the principle point, which is that it is a concept with broad democratic and independent voter appeal. Running for the Democratic candidacy in 2019, hoping to get 2019 voters motivated to beat Trump, Pete focuses his energy on...attacking popular democratic ideas. And just as absurdly, in a year when even Republican voters express growing frustration with national economic inequities, his proposed cutoff for access to free public university schooling is...families making $100,000 a year.

I will readily admit that my initial post left room for this misinterpretation.

McParadigm wrote:It reads to me like you’re interpreting my initial post to mean “Republicans argue that we shouldn’t give things to millionaires.” And that therefore, absent that literal and direct association, you believe the point crumbles.

My point instead was that:

1. Pete’s logic is stupid because it works as an argument against publicly maintained roads, and that separately from that...

2. ...it is built on lending credibility to arguments like the one Mickey posted above. The logic in that article is the foundation...the heritage, if you will...of Pete’s opposition.

But all of this is secondary to the principle point, which is that it is a concept with broad democratic and independent voter appeal. Running for the Democratic candidacy in 2019, hoping to get 2019 voters motivated to beat Trump, Pete focuses his energy on...attacking popular democratic ideas. And just as absurdly, in a year when even Republican voters express growing frustration with national economic inequities, his proposed cutoff for access to free public university schooling is...families making $100,000 a year.

I’m really not following the “this logic threatens publicly maintained roads” thing. The usage and demand are radically different. We use means testing in many government managed programs as a way to reduce abuse and offset costs to those who don’t need the help (welfare, SNAP, etc.), why is college different? It reeks of ‘oh noes my progressive agenda is being threatened’ instead of a legitimate review of the proposal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html


This ‘principle point’ also seems shortsighted. My understanding is that there is a real blue wave this time rebuking Trump. What this means is that whomever wins the dem primary will receive broad support form the base regardless of their policy specifics (the blue team wisely sees removing trump as priority #1). So why shouldn’t the candidates offer olive branches to right-leaning independents and liberal republicans? He only needs to grab a few percent of trumps 2016 votes to capture the swing states and not pandering to the progressive horse shit that turns them off seems like a decent plan. Right? Trump went after disaffected Obama voters, shouldn’t the blue team do the same?

Bi_3 wrote:This ‘principle point’ also seems shortsighted. My understanding is that there is a real blue wave this time rebuking Trump. What this means is that whomever wins the dem primary will receive broad support form the base regardless of their policy specifics (the blue team wisely sees removing trump as priority #1). So why shouldn’t the candidates offer olive branches to right-leaning independents and liberal republicans? He only needs to grab a few percent of trumps 2016 votes to capture the swing states and not pandering to the progressive horse shit that turns them off seems like a decent plan. Right? Trump went after disaffected Obama voters, shouldn’t the blue team do the same?

I don’t know who you think you’re referring to. 40% of Republicans support making higher education tuition-free and eliminating student debt. If anything, this suggests that supporting the idea is a far better way to appeal to liberal republicans than opposing it is, which is exactly my point to begin with: openly opposing it is a tactical error on a level with those made by Warren.

More significantly, support explodes when you sort by income level and look at only those Republicans and independents making less than $75,000 a year. In fact, if you sort for independent voters making less than $75,000 a year who have voted both Democrat and Republican at some point in the last 10 years, support is around 70 fucking percent.

I’d like you to consider that either your opinion of the policy or of the candidate is influencing your interpretation of this, because in purely electoral ambition terms it is a demonstrable misstep. It is popular among exactly the voting groups you’re referring to, and by attacking it Pete has turned swaths of wavering Democrats against himself. It was a gainless woops.

And the thing is, it’s not like he had to come out in open support of the idea. He just had to not attack it. He just had to not use his candidacy to push back against popular democratic ideas. For fucks sake, there’s a million things going on right now in the Trump administration where he could’ve made his name as “the guy who hit back hardest against this cruelty.” Framing his candidacy as “me versus Trump“ has done wonders for Joe Biden, who otherwise has offered next to nothing. It’s kept him in the lead for fucks sake. There are opportunities for taking problems America faces and making yourself the champion. For taking marginalized groups and defending them. For leading by compassion, which was a big part of why Democrats’ message won the suburbs.

He opted to attack other Democrats, and on an issue that polls better than he does. Like the world’s biggest dumbass.

I realize I’m setting myself up here, but where is the polling data that suggests support for his plan is significantly lower than the more progressive-branded option? Who are the voters that will say “no free college for millionaires? Fuck that! MAGA! MAGA!”?

He supports federally funded tuition at public colleges for households earning up 170% of the median (~80% of the country) and reduced tuition on a sliding scale for households earning 171-254%. This is not someone attacking the idea of free college as you are suggesting, this is someone with a plan that has a chance of actually passing and helps the overwhelming majority of Americans. The candidates making unicorn promises they know they cannot keep should be taken to task for giving Trump ammunition against the party and Mayor Pete is right to call them out on it.

Pete Buttigieg is a lying MF

Warren appears to be attracting otherwise would-be Bernie voters

they should just team up now so as to not split their base and then vanquish the Alt-Moderates

Bernie dibs on Prez bc he is like PJ and Warren is STP

96583UP wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

96583UP wrote:Just want to be totally clear in saying that Donald Trump absolutely loves election fraud

That's slanderous.

There have been many news articles about how commonly-used U.S. voting machines can be hacked.

Russia could flip votes and send this POTUS to an electoral victory. And this POTUS could use his powers to kill any FBI investigations into such things.

And his corrupt GOP Senate would do whatever it can to protect him.

And then what recourse would Americans have?

we’re off to a great start!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/30/us/po ... hines.html

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:He's been taking some blows. Don't worry, I'm.sure the Mayor of South fucking Bend is going to rise to the occasion.

It was a pretty stupid ad in general, but to drop it in a Democratic primary? Woof.

What's all this now?

The same logic in this ad dictates that subway systems and public schools are a mistake, because millionaires can access them. It’s also a disingenuous argument that places like the Heritage Foundation have been using for years to attack public works. Whether you agree with the college idea or not, legitimizing right wing talking points from a position of Democratic influence during a presidential candidacy....sucks.

Trump is heading towards reelection and this is what we give a shit about?

Obviously the best way to beat him is to attack proposals that simultaneously poll above 55% nationally while also ranking as a top-five voter turnout motivator for one of the largest in-party voting blocks. If you can grant free legitimacy to the Republican base’s talking points from the Democratic platform, its just a sweet bonus.

Means testing for mitigating the social cost of offering free tuition to public colleges is not a republican talking point.

Literally the second and third paragraph on the Heritage Foundation:

While proponents call these proposals “investments in our future,” the reality is they would be a suffocating financial burden on every taxpayer, but especially on middle- and lower-income citizens. There’s an inherent unfairness to forcing many working-class Americans who couldn’t afford to go to college themselves to pay off the loans of those who could.

Requiring a family making $50,000 a year to pay off the college debts of doctors, lawyers, engineers and even some members of Congress who make $174,000 a year is unconscionable. Moreover, how fair is it for those who did go to college and worked hard to pay off their loans to then be forced to pay off everyone else’s?

I’m not an Ivy Leaguer so I could be wrong, but what you’ve quoted above is about student debt forgiveness, which is neither what I commented on nor what was contained in PB’s ad nor mentioned in your link.

Oh shit man you really got me there, the very first Google hit for higher ed from a major conservative thinktank opens by promoting means-testing for student loan forgiveness but it's beyond the pale to note that the rhetoric used (not burdening middle class families with the debt of rich kids) is nearly word-for-word the justification Pete used for his terrible wonk fantasy.

on the bright side, when Russia takes over, we can drink straight vodka at breakfast without judgement

How is Joe Biden not polling at 0%? Is this a practical joke? Are we being pranked?

BurtReynolds wrote:How is Joe Biden not polling at 0%? Is this a practical joke? Are we being pranked?

Thanks Boomers